> I don't think that unifying them all into a single tag is a bad idea. > It would be easier while editing the map (only 1 choice to make, > instead of 5), easier to describe to users (instead of 5 different > tags), to consume in applications (such as the renderer, but also in > routers), and it would also use less database space. It's a big > culture change, but it simplifies a lot of things. Moreover, we could > leave some space between the classes that we establish now so that > new, intermediary classes can be added in the future (if tracktype had > done that, maybe I'd be advocating for it right now). >
I am sorry Fernando, but is is a bad idea. What I suspect will happen is that you will find yourself with highways mapped just like this: highway=primary tracktype=grade3 and now what? Why grade3? Why not grade2 or grade4? Is it paved? Is is not? perhaps the mapper was lazy and just put in the first number that came to his mind? The other problem I see with this is that you are asking people to do the work the renderer is supposed to do. The renderer (be it an Android app, or a website) needs to combine the various descriptions and come up with a grade which may change depending on the vehicle or on weather conditions. That is why I think your table is the sort of thing a renderer should use. I think this is moving into the wrong direction. We need the opposite, we need for people to be descriptive. Is the highway paved with asphalt? surface=asphalt. Does it look bad? smoothness=bad and so on. If we disagree on what surface=compacted truly means, then add a more descriptive tag to it. A grading system cannot replace this.
_______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list Tagging@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
